The document discusses economic conditions in Imperial Russia between 1871-1914. It notes that while industry grew during this period, led by the textile and metallurgical industries supporting railway expansion, it did not grow enough to relieve pressure from agricultural overpopulation. Agriculture continued to struggle with low yields due to outdated practices, lack of credit, and the continuation of the commune system. Efforts at reform were sporadic and aimed more at relieving misery temporarily rather than enacting fundamental change, for fear of alienating the landed classes. The condition of the peasantry continued to be one of deepening poverty.

1. Nineteenth Century Europe
PART 3
1871-1914
session 17
IMPERIAL RUSSIA

2. Nineteenth Century Europe
PART 3
1871-1914
session 17
IMPERIAL RUSSIA

3. Economic Conditions
THE AGRARIAN PROBLEM
INDUSTRY AND LABOR
FOREIGN TRADE
Political Developments
THE LAST YEARS OF ALEXANDER II
FULL REACTION, 1881-1905
REFORMERS AND REVOLUTIONARIES
THE REVOLUTION OF 1905
THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIMENT
The Subject Nationalities
RUSSIFICATION
POLAND
FINLAND
Today’s Major Themes

4. The Cherry Orchard (Вишнёвый сад, translit. Vishnyovyi sad)
Scene from Act 3 of the original Moscow Art Theatre production, 1904—Wikipedia

5. Wikipedia
“…the last play by Russian playwright Anton Chekhov.• Written in 1903,….It opened at
the Moscow Art Theatre on 17 January 1904 in a production directed by Konstantin
Stanislavsky.• Chekhov described the play as a comedy, with some elements of farce,
though Stanislavsky treated it as a tragedy. Since its first production, directors have
contended with its dual nature. It is often identified as one of the three or four outstanding
plays by Chekhov, along with The Seagull, Three Sisters, and Uncle Vanya.
The play concerns an aristocratic Russian landowner who returns to her family estate
(which includes a large and well-known cherry orchard) just before it is auctioned to pay
the mortgage. Unresponsive to offers to save the estate, she allows its sale to the son of a
former serf; the family leaves to the sound of the cherry orchard being cut down. The story
presents themes of cultural futility – both the futile attempts of the aristocracy to maintain
its status and of the bourgeoisie to find meaning in its newfound materialism.It dramatizes
the socio-economic forces in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, including the rise of
the middle class after the abolition of serfdom in the mid-19th century and the decline of
the power of the aristocracy.

6. Craig, op. cit., p. 381
“In Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, the ‘perpetual student’ Trofimov has a speech
at the end of the second act that must have profoundly moved the audience when the play
was performed in Moscow in January 1904.
“Ever since the 1860s speeches like this had been made by Russian intellectuals. The
fact that Russia lagged behind the major nations of the western world in material progress
and in the evolution of its political institutions was obvious to anyone whose view
extended beyond the confines of his own country. Awareness of it governed the thinking of
the majority of Russians who were politically conscious, making them dissatisfied with the
status quo. There was no unity of view among them, however, concerning the nature of
desirable change or the means of effecting it, although, generally speaking, the advocates
of reform divided into three main groupings….”
We are at least two hundred years behind, we have really gained nothing yet, we have
no definite attitude to the past, we do nothing but theorize or complain of depression or
drink vodka. It is clear that to begin to live in the present we must first expiate our
past, we must break with it; and we can expiate it only by suffering, by extraordinary
unceasing labor.•

7. Advocates of Change
“The first were those who wanted economic and social improvements granted from
above—
that is, by imperial ukase or administrative action—without fundamental alteration of the political
or social system.
This group included Tsar Alexander II in his earlier years and a long line of bureaucratic
reformers from Miliutin to Stolypin.
“The second group,…believed that Russia must seek to emulate the liberal countries
of Western Europe, attaining gradual reform by the progressive extension of political
rights.
This group was composed of university professors, civil servants, members of the professions, and
representatives of the growing capitalist class.
“The third, and least homogeneous group was composed of revolutionaries of various
types and with various programs, most of whom, however, were agreed that the break
with the past must be a violent one.…”
op. cit., pp. 381-82.

8. Forces of Reaction
“Opposed to these apostles of change were
members of the governing class, at the court, in the higher civil service and the armed forces,
in the church and among the landed gentry, who consciously opposed change for ideological
or material reasons,
and the inert mass of the population
which was sunk in ignorance and traditionalism.
“The political influence of organized reaction
and the unresponsiveness of the masses helped to defeat or delay the kinds of reform
advocated by the first two groups mentioned above and, in the end, to discredit those who
favored them;
and this meant that, as the years passed, more and more people came to
believe in the inevitability of a truly radical reformation of conditions in
Russia, including the actual overthrow of the dynasty.”
op. cit., p. 382.

9. Grigoriy Myasoyedov, Busy Time for the Mowers 1887

13. Economic Conditions
THE AGRARIAN PROBLEM
A 1907 painting by Boris Kustodiev • depicting
Russian serfs listening to the proclamation of
the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861—
Wikipedia
Self-portrait in front of
Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra,
1912, Uffizi—
Wikipedia

14. Economic Conditions
THE AGRARIAN PROBLEM
Zemstvo having a dinner by Grigoriy
Myasoyedov. 1872.—
Wikipedia
Myascoyedov by Ilya
Repin, 1904—
Wikipedia

15. jbp.
“Those two paintings depicting scenes eleven years apart, Kustodiev’s in 1861 and
Myasoyedov’s in 1872, capture perfectly Tsar Alexander’s ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’ The Emancipation Edict promised a new dawn for Russia’s more than 23
million serfs. A clause created the new form of local government, the zemstvo, which
would supervise this transformation.…”

16. jbp.
“Those two paintings depicting scenes eleven years apart, Kustodiev’s in 1861 and
Myasoyedov’s in 1872, capture perfectly Tsar Alexander’s ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’ The Emancipation Edict promised a new dawn for Russia’s more than 23
million serfs. A clause created the new form of local government, the zemstvo, which
would supervise this transformation. These aristocratic-dominated bodies began in 1865.
…”

17. jbp.
“Those two paintings depicting scenes eleven years apart, Kustodiev’s in 1861 and
Myasoyedov’s in 1872, capture perfectly Tsar Alexander’s ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’ The Emancipation Edict promised a new dawn for Russia’s more than 23
million serfs. A clause created the new form of local government, the zemstvo, which
would supervise this transformation. These aristocratic-dominated bodies began in 1865.•
Myasoyedov shows the ‘representative’ [sic] council (zemskoye sobranye) on a lunch
break. The aristocratic members dine inside,…”

18. “Those two paintings depicting scenes eleven years apart, Kustodiev’s in 1861 and
Myasoyedov’s in 1872, capture perfectly Tsar Alexander’s ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’ The Emancipation Edict promised a new dawn for Russia’s more than 23
million serfs. A clause created the new form of local government, the zemstvo, which
would supervise this transformation. These aristocratic-dominated bodies began in 1865.•
Myasoyedov shows the ‘representative’ [sic] council (zemskoye sobranye) on a lunch
break. The aristocratic members dine inside, while the lower five social classes squat
outside with ‘bag lunches.’ Two peasants can just be made out, apparently having ‘drunk’
their lunches.…”

19. “Those two paintings depicting scenes eleven years apart, Kustodiev’s in 1861 and
Myasoyedov’s in 1872, capture perfectly Tsar Alexander’s ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’ The Emancipation Edict promised a new dawn for Russia’s more than 23
million serfs. A clause created the new form of local government, the zemstvo, which
would supervise this transformation. These aristocratic-dominated bodies began in 1865.•
Myasoyedov shows the ‘representative’ [sic] council (zemskoye sobranye) on a lunch
break. The aristocratic members dine inside, while the lower five social classes squat
outside with ‘bag lunches.’ Two peasants can just be made out, apparently having ‘drunk’
their lunches. The parish priest seems at a loss over the whole proceedings.”

20. Craig, op. cit., p. 382
“Nothing better illustrates the backwardness of Russia by Western standards than the
lagging pace of agriculture through the period under discussion. Basically, the problem
here was one of overpopulation, but this was aggravated by other things. The land would
have supported many more people than it did if, after the emancipation edict, the
traditional communal organization of agriculture had not been maintained. The system of
land distribution commonly used by the communes necessitated a reliance upon the three-
field system as the only practical system of rotation, and this meant that a third of
communal lands were always lying fallow. The productive capacity of the soil was
handicapped also by a lack of technical knowledge among the peasantry and by the failure
of the government to provide information about methods of intensive cultivation or
enough credit to bring machinery or fertilizer within the grasp of the small landholder.
While the population increased therefore, the yield remained stationary. Even so, the
pressure upon the soil might have been relieved if the government had not been opposed to
having its subjects move about at will. Without papers, which the authorities [the
zemstvos] were reluctant to give, the rural masses had to remain stationary and, in hard
years, to starve.”

21. Craig, op. cit., pp. 382-83
“It was possible, of course, for individual peasants to increase their holdings by
purchasing or leasing land from noble landlords. To purchase land, however, required
funds which very few peasants possessed, and the government was slow to extend credit
facilities. Even when a peasants’ land bank was founded in 1883, its terms were such that
it could be resorted to only by the wealthier peasantry. Leasing took many forms and, for
the most vulnerable peasantry, it became a kind of sharecropping that was accomplished
by special dues and corvées that were not essentially different from those exacted before
the emancipation edict. In whatever form, leasing, too, was an option that was open to a
very small minority; the great mass of the peasantry continued to live in the communes in
conditions of deepening poverty. It is not surprising that the memory of the exciting
promise of the days of emancipation…”

23. Apparently, only the child is literate and the men can only listen.—jbp

26. Craig, op. cit., pp. 382-83
“It was possible, of course, for individual peasants to increase their holdings by
purchasing or leasing land from noble landlords. To purchase land, however, required
funds which very few peasants possessed, and the government was slow to extend credit
facilities. Even when a peasants’ land bank was founded in 1883, its terms were such that
it could be resorted to only by the wealthier peasantry. Leasing took many forms and, for
the most vulnerable peasantry, it became a kind of sharecropping that was accomplished
by special dues and corvées that were not essentially different from those exacted before
the emancipation edict. In whatever form, leasing, too, was an option that was open to a
very small minority; the great mass of the peasantry continued to live in the communes in
conditions of deepening poverty. It is not surprising that the memory of the exciting
promise of the days of emancipation should gradually have been transformed into a legend
that the tsar’s wishes and the peasants’ hopes had been betrayed by evil forces, and that
some day justice would be done and a greater sharing out of the land, by an expropriation
of the proprietors, would take place. In hard times, the willingness to wait wore thin; in
1902, for instance, there were serious peasant uprisings in European Russia.…”

27. op. cit., p. 383
“The government was always aware of the misery of the rural masses and made sporadic
efforts to relieve it, by reduction of land and poll taxes, occasional moratoriums of
redemption payments, and the like. But until Stolypin’s time,”

28. op. cit., p. 383
“The government was always aware of the misery of the rural masses and made sporadic
efforts to relieve it, by reduction of land and poll taxes, occasional moratoriums of
redemption payments, and the like. But until Stolypin’s time, the reforms were palliative
rather than basic, partly because the government was afraid of alienating the noble land-
owning class by being too generous with the peasantry. The government always seemed to
be saying what Alexander II had said in 1861 to a delegation of peasants from Tula: ‘There
will be no emancipation except the one I have granted you. Obey the law and the statutes.
Work and toil! Be obedient to the authorities and to noble landowners!’ ”

29. op. cit., p. 383
“The government was always aware of the misery of the rural masses and made sporadic
efforts to relieve it, by reduction of land and poll taxes, occasional moratoriums of
redemption payments, and the like. But until Stolypin’s time, the reforms were palliative
rather than basic, partly because the government was afraid of alienating the noble land-
owning class by being too generous with the peasantry. The government always seemed to
be saying what Alexander II had said in 1861 to a delegation of peasants from Tula: ‘There
will be no emancipation except the one I have granted you. Obey the law and the statutes.
Work and toil! Be obedient to the authorities and to noble landowners!’ ”

30. op. cit., p. 383
“The government was always aware of the misery of the rural masses and made sporadic
efforts to relieve it, by reduction of land and poll taxes, occasional moratoriums of
redemption payments, and the like. But until Stolypin’s time, the reforms were palliative
rather than basic, partly because the government was afraid of alienating the noble land-
owning class by being too generous with the peasantry. The government always seemed to
be saying what Alexander II had said in 1861 to a delegation of peasants from Tula: ‘There
will be no emancipation except the one I have granted you. Obey the law and the statutes.
Work and toil! Be obedient to the authorities and to noble landowners!’ ”

33. The arrow draws attention to the ever-present policeman.

34. Economic Conditions
INDUSTRY AND LABOR

35. Economic Conditions
INDUSTRY AND LABOR
Ilya Repin,
Barge Haulers
on theVolga,
1870–1873.
—Wikipedia

36. Economic Conditions
INDUSTRY AND LABOR
Ilya Repin,
Barge Haulers
on theVolga,
1870–1873.
—Wikipedia

37. Ibid.
“In contrast to agriculture, Russian industry showed decided signs of growth in this period,
although it did not reach a magnitude capable of relieving the agricultural overpopulation.
The most marked gains were made by the textile and metallurgical industries. The growth
of the metal industries received its impetus from the rapid railway building of the
1870s,•…”

39. Ibid.
“In contrast to agriculture, Russian industry showed decided signs of growth in this period,
although it did not reach a magnitude capable of relieving the agricultural overpopulation.
The most marked gains were made by the textile and metallurgical industries. The growth
of the metal industries received its impetus from the rapid railway building of the 1870s,•
which continued, although at a slower rate, through the 1880s, and accelerated in the next
decade, when the government became concerned with the deficiencies of its strategical rail
net, and especially of facilities for westward troop movement and the supply of the new
defensive works built during the 1890s. Between 1892 and 1902, total rail mileage grew
by 46%. The demand for steel rails and iron wheels was one of the principal reasons for
the development [by John Hughes •]…”

40. Ibid.
“In contrast to agriculture, Russian industry showed decided signs of growth in this period,
although it did not reach a magnitude capable of relieving the agricultural overpopulation.
The most marked gains were made by the textile and metallurgical industries. The growth
of the metal industries received its impetus from the rapid railway building of the 1870s,•
which continued, although at a slower rate, through the 1880s, and accelerated in the next
decade, when the government became concerned with the deficiencies of its strategical rail
net, and especially of facilities for westward troop movement and the supply of the new
defensive works built during the 1890s. Between 1892 and 1902, total rail mileage grew
by 46%. The demand for steel rails and iron wheels was one of the principal reasons for
the development [by John Hughes •] of the great new coal and iron industry in the Donetz
basin…”

41. Ibid.
“In contrast to agriculture, Russian industry showed decided signs of growth in this period,
although it did not reach a magnitude capable of relieving the agricultural overpopulation.
The most marked gains were made by the textile and metallurgical industries. The growth
of the metal industries received its impetus from the rapid railway building of the 1870s,•
which continued, although at a slower rate, through the 1880s, and accelerated in the next
decade, when the government became concerned with the deficiencies of its strategical rail
net, and especially of facilities for westward troop movement and the supply of the new
defensive works built during the 1890s. Between 1892 and 1902, total rail mileage grew
by 46%. The demand for steel rails and iron wheels was one of the principal reasons for
the development [by John Hughes •] of the great new coal and iron industry in the Donetz
basin • and the rise of such new industrial centers as Ekaterinoslav and Rostov-on-Don.
Another industrial area of growing importance was that around Baku in the oil fields of the
Caucasus.”

42. op. cit., pp.383-84.
“The government was less hesitant in extending assistance to industry than it sometimes
seemed to be in dealing with agricultural problems. It promoted the building of railways
by subventions of various kinds to private firms (and, at a later date, bought them out on
terms favorable to the owners). It aided the metallurgical industry by granting state
contracts and imposing heavy duties upon the goods of foreign competitors. From the late
1870s on, Russian tariffs showed a general increase, textiles benefitting from protection as
much as the metal goods. Finally, industry in general benefitted from the policies of Count
S. Y. Witte • (1849-1915),…”

43. op. cit., pp.383-84.
“The government was less hesitant in extending assistance to industry than it sometimes
seemed to be in dealing with agricultural problems. It promoted the building of railways
by subventions of various kinds to private firms (and, at a later date, bought them out on
terms favorable to the owners). It aided the metallurgical industry by granting state
contracts and imposing heavy duties upon the goods of foreign competitors. From the late
1870s on, Russian tariffs showed a general increase, textiles benefitting from protection as
much as the metal goods. Finally, industry in general benefitted from the policies of Count
S. Y. Witte • (1849-1915), who was minister of finance from 1892 to 1903 and thus largely
responsible for the second great period of railway construction mentioned. He was also the
moving spirit in the greatest progress in the development of Siberia since the days of
Nicholas Muravev. Upon taking office, Witte set out systematically to attract capital to
Russia in order to encourage industrial expansion. His method of doing this was to use
tariffs to increase state revenues and create a gold reserve sufficiently large to enable
Russia to adopt the gold standard, thus enhancing its international fiscal standing.”

44. op. cit., pp.383-84.
“The government was less hesitant in extending assistance to industry than it sometimes
seemed to be in dealing with agricultural problems. It promoted the building of railways
by subventions of various kinds to private firms (and, at a later date, bought them out on
terms favorable to the owners). It aided the metallurgical industry by granting state
contracts and imposing heavy duties upon the goods of foreign competitors. From the late
1870s on, Russian tariffs showed a general increase, textiles benefitting from protection as
much as the metal goods. Finally, industry in general benefitted from the policies of Count
S. Y. Witte • (1849-1915), who was minister of finance from 1892 to 1903 and thus largely
responsible for the second great period of railway construction mentioned. He was also the
moving spirit in the greatest progress in the development of Siberia since the days of
Nicholas Muravev. Upon taking office, Witte set out systematically to attract capital to
Russia in order to encourage industrial expansion. His method of doing this was to use
tariffs to increase state revenues and create a gold reserve sufficiently large to enable
Russia to adopt the gold standard, thus enhancing its international fiscal standing.”

45. op. cit., pp.383-84.
“…Witte accomplished his primary goal in 1897; and foreign capital began almost
immediately to come into the country. By 1900, French and Belgian investors were
supporting the development of heavy industry in the Ukraine, and there were 269 foreign
firms operating in Russia, helping to exploit her mineral and oil deposits and to stimulate
such new industries as electrical and chemical engineering. Thanks to this external aid, at
the end of the Witte period, Russia was producing more pig iron than France, standing
fourth in world production, and ranked fifth in steel. According to one Soviet calculation
(all the more impressive since Soviet writers have been generally critical of his reforms)
total industrial production doubled during Witte’s term of office; the momentum he had
achieved made it increase by 50% more in the next decade. Witte’s critics claimed that this
was achieved at the cost of increasing dependence on foreign aid and a corresponding loss
of freedom. That there was some dependence was true—it was probably inevitable—but
without the impetus provided by foreign capital [and the technology brought by foreign
management and workmen like Hughes] there would have been virtually no economic
progress at all.”

46. op. cit., p.384.
“This progress was purchased at the cost of new social and political problems. As in
other countries, the prevailing tendency in industrial organization was toward large-scale
capitalist enterprises, and the appearance of such establishments, armed with all the
advantages that mechanization and superior capital resources can bring, made inevitable
the decline of craft industries, which also contributed to the complications of the agrarian
problem in those areas where handicrafts had supplemented peasant incomes (although in
time industrial side-earnings helped, as Theodore von Laue has pointed out, to keep many
peasant farmers from starvation).
“At the same time, conditions in the new capitalist enterprises resembled those that
prevailed in England in the 1820s and France in the 1840s. Pent up in squalid slums or in
miserable company barracks, the factory workers had to work fourteen to sixteen hours a
day for wages so trifling that the pay of the head of the family was not sufficient to support
its other members, so that women and children also had to labor in the foundries and the
mines….”

48. op. cit., p.384.
“This progress was purchased at the cost of new social and political problems. As in
other countries, the prevailing tendency in industrial organization was toward large-scale
capitalist enterprises, and the appearance of such establishments, armed with all the
advantages that mechanization and superior capital resources can bring, made inevitable
the decline of craft industries, which also contributed to the complications of the agrarian
problem in those areas where handicrafts had supplemented peasant incomes (although in
time industrial side-earnings helped, as Theodore von Laue has pointed out, to keep many
peasant farmers from starvation).
“At the same time, conditions in the new capitalist enterprises resembled those that
prevailed in England in the 1820s and France in the 1840s. Pent up in squalid slums or in
miserable company barracks, the factory workers had to work fourteen to sixteen hours a
day for wages so trifling that the pay of the head of the family was not sufficient to support
its other members, so that women and children also had to labor in the foundries and the
mines.• Factory inspection, sanitary laws, and safety precautions were, until very late in
the century, nonexistent.”

49. op. cit., pp.384-85.
“Against these conditions and against the steady decline of their real income, the
workers had no means of protection. They were caught in an economic squeeze caused by
the fact that the growth of industry was not rapid enough to keep pace with the numbers of
landless and job-hungry peasants; and, as long as the labor supply exceeded demand, the
factory and mine owners could keep their workers at the barest subsistence level.•…”

50. op. cit., pp.384-85.
“Against these conditions and against the steady decline of their real income, the
workers had no means of protection. They were caught in an economic squeeze caused by
the fact that the growth of industry was not rapid enough to keep pace with the numbers of
landless and job-hungry peasants; and, as long as the labor supply exceeded demand, the
factory and mine owners could keep their workers at the barest subsistence level.• [The so-
called ‘Iron Law of Wages,’ which I was taught was formulated by David Ricardo.
Wikipedia now puts out an accreditation to Ferdinand Lasalle, which appears to be well-
argued.•]…”

51. op. cit., pp.384-85.
“Against these conditions and against the steady decline of their real income, the
workers had no means of protection. They were caught in an economic squeeze caused by
the fact that the growth of industry was not rapid enough to keep pace with the numbers of
landless and job-hungry peasants; and, as long as the labor supply exceeded demand, the
factory and mine owners could keep their workers at the barest subsistence level.• [The so-
called ‘Iron Law of Wages,’ which I was taught was formulated by David Ricardo.
Wikipedia now puts out an accreditation to Ferdinand Lasalle, which appears to be well-
argued.•] Until the 1880s, the government took only a theoretical interest in labor
grievances; and, even when regulation began, its first effect was to further hurt workers’
income. The law forbidding employment of children under 12 (1882), legislation later in
the decade prohibiting night work for women and adolescents in certain industries, and the
laws of the Witte period,• …”

52. op. cit., pp.384-85.
“Against these conditions and against the steady decline of their real income, the
workers had no means of protection. They were caught in an economic squeeze caused by
the fact that the growth of industry was not rapid enough to keep pace with the numbers of
landless and job-hungry peasants; and, as long as the labor supply exceeded demand, the
factory and mine owners could keep their workers at the barest subsistence level.• [The so-
called ‘Iron Law of Wages,’ which I was taught was formulated by David Ricardo.
Wikipedia now puts out an accreditation to Ferdinand Lasalle, which appears to be well-
argued.•] Until the 1880s, the government took only a theoretical interest in labor
grievances; and, even when regulation began, its first effect was to further hurt workers’
income. The law forbidding employment of children under 12 (1882), legislation later in
the decade prohibiting night work for women and adolescents in certain industries, and the
laws of the Witte period,• which regulated the work day of all workers, were estimable
reforms, long needed; but at a time when hourly real wages were very low, they must have
been regarded as a dubious gain by many workers. The right to form protective
organizations of their own was denied to Russian workers in 1875, while English trade
unions were being given a new charter of liberty by the Disraeli government,•…”

53. op. cit., pp.384-85.
“Against these conditions and against the steady decline of their real income, the
workers had no means of protection. They were caught in an economic squeeze caused by
the fact that the growth of industry was not rapid enough to keep pace with the numbers of
landless and job-hungry peasants; and, as long as the labor supply exceeded demand, the
factory and mine owners could keep their workers at the barest subsistence level.• [The so-
called ‘Iron Law of Wages,’ which I was taught was formulated by David Ricardo.
Wikipedia now puts out an accreditation to Ferdinand Lasalle, which appears to be well-
argued.•] Until the 1880s, the government took only a theoretical interest in labor
grievances; and, even when regulation began, its first effect was to further hurt workers’
income. The law forbidding employment of children under 12 (1882), legislation later in
the decade prohibiting night work for women and adolescents in certain industries, and the
laws of the Witte period,• which regulated the work day of all workers, were estimable
reforms, long needed; but at a time when hourly real wages were very low, they must have
been regarded as a dubious gain by many workers. The right to form protective
organizations of their own was denied to Russian workers in 1875, while English trade
unions were being given a new charter of liberty by the Disraeli government,• the Russian
penal code laid down a scale of heavy punishments for anyone engaged in organizing
societies that were likely to encourage hatred between employers and employees.”

54. op. cit., p. 385.
“…The definition of such societies was sufficiently broad to include even purely
benevolent societies to say nothing of those that were designed to improve the lot of the
workers by exerting economic pressure upon proprietors. Although certain branches of the
state service, notably the Ministry of Finance, believed that a more enlightened policy
would make for labor peace and greater production, the government generally cooperated
with antiunion employers, on the theory that unions represented a political threat to the
regime. Troops were often placed at the disposal of employers to put down unrest; and
agents were put in factories to spy out attempts at illegal organization or to identify
agitators. In 1901, the Ministry of the Interior tried another tack in its fight against unions.
It established a workers society under police patronage, the main purpose of which was to
organize patriotic demonstrations, which, it was apparently hoped, would satisfy the
workers desire for direct action. The society was not successful and was disbanded when it
was discovered that it supplied a useful cover for the distribution of socialist propaganda.”

55. Ibid.
“Neither the government’s repressive and diversionary tactics nor its cautious reforms
prevented labor unrest. Despite the lack of legal organization, strikes were not infrequent
from the 1870s on. A serious strike in the Moscow textile industry in 1885 persuaded the
government to pass legislation limiting the employers’ use of monetary fines for breaches
of discipline; and new stoppages in the same industry in 1896 and 1897 prompted Witte’s
labor legislation. Two years later, Russia entered a general economic depression, which
was felt particularly heavily in the metal and oil industries and from which the country the
country had not completely recovered when the war with Japan began. The effect of this
was both to increase the number of strikes and to change their character. After 1900, the
objectives of the workers always included political demands, and their strikes were often
short and designed not to win economic concessions but to serve as demonstrations against
the regime. Sympathy strikes also made their appearance. In November 1902, a general
strike was declared in Rostov-on-Don and had to be put down by government troops; and
in the following years a strike at Baku set off a chain reaction of labor walkouts and
demonstrations in other industrial towns.”

56. Economic Conditions
FOREIGN TRADE
A French grain ship l’Avenir (1908) moored
in the Millwall docks, with McDougall’s
Wheatsheaf Mill in the background.A
French ship carrying Russian grain to
Britain
—
Wikipedia

58. Political Developments
THE LAST YEARS OF ALEXANDER II
The Revolutionary Meeting,
Ilya Repin, 1883,
in the Tretyakov Gallery,
Moscow—
Wikipedia

59. op. cit., p. 386.
“On 4 April 1866, a young man named D. V. Karakozov tried unsuccessfully to assassinate
Alexander II.…”

60. op. cit., p. 386.
“On 4 April 1866, a young man named D. V. Karakozov tried unsuccessfully to assassinate
Alexander II. His shot was a kind of signal for the government to reverse its gears and turn
away from the reforming instinct that had guided official policy since the end of the
Crimean War and had produced the emancipation edict, the establishment of the zemstvos,
and the reorganization of the judicial system. There was still some reforming activity. In
the 1870s, the minister of war, D. A. Miliutin,…”

61. op. cit., p. 386.
“On 4 April 1866, a young man named D. V. Karakozov tried unsuccessfully to assassinate
Alexander II. His shot was a kind of signal for the government to reverse its gears and turn
away from the reforming instinct that had guided official policy since the end of the
Crimean War and had produced the emancipation edict, the establishment of the zemstvos,
and the reorganization of the judicial system. There was still some reforming activity. In
the 1870s, the minister of war, D. A. Miliutin,…”

62. op. cit., p. 386.
“On 4 April 1866, a young man named D. V. Karakozov tried unsuccessfully to assassinate
Alexander II. His shot was a kind of signal for the government to reverse its gears and turn
away from the reforming instinct that had guided official policy since the end of the
Crimean War and had produced the emancipation edict, the establishment of the zemstvos,
and the reorganization of the judicial system. There was still some reforming activity. In
the 1870s, the minister of war, D. A. Miliutin,• completed a fundamental shake-up of the
whole military system that brought a reduction of the top-heavy army bureaucracy, a new
regional organization, the appointment for the first time of a chief of the general staff, and,
in 1874, the introduction of compulsory military service for all able males. These reforms,
which laid the basis for the modern Russian army, were accompanied by disciplinary
changes that somewhat reduced the brutal treatment formerly meted out to the ranks; and,
generally, they can be described as progressive in temper.”

63. op. cit., p. 386.
“The military reforms, however, were an exception forced on the government by the
unmistakable superiority of Western armies in the wars in the Crimea and in central
Europe. In matters less obviously vital to the security of the state, an increasingly
reactionary tendency was apparent. This was true, for example, in the field of education
where, under the inspiration of Count Dmitri Tolstoy,•… ”

64. op. cit., p. 386.
“The military reforms, however, were an exception forced on the government by the
unmistakable superiority of Western armies in the wars in the Crimea and in central
Europe. In matters less obviously vital to the security of the state, an increasingly
reactionary tendency was apparent. This was true, for example, in the field of education
where, under the inspiration of Count Dmitri Tolstoy,• minister of education from 1866
until 1880, academic freedom in the universities was virtually extinguished, the faculties
being commanded to make reports to the police about student opinion and all student
activities being prohibited. Simultaneously, Tolstoy declared war on natural science,
reducing the time allotted to it in secondary school curricula and enforcing a much greater
emphasis upon classical and modern languages, literature, history, geography, religion, and
other subjects that he appeared to regard as politically and morally innocuous.
“These measures were considered an attempt to shelter Russian youth from modern
knowledge and were widely resented. From a practical point of view, they neither
protected students from subversive influences nor provided a very effective education,
since Russia did not have enough competent classicists to make the reforms work. At a
time when the country was producing scientists of world reputation—D. I. Mendeleev
(1843-1901) in chemistry,• I. I. Mechnikov (1845-1916) in biology,• I. P. Pavlov
(1849-1936) in physiology •—they made it difficult for those great scholars to find and
train students…. ”

65. op. cit., p. 386.
“The military reforms, however, were an exception forced on the government by the
unmistakable superiority of Western armies in the wars in the Crimea and in central
Europe. In matters less obviously vital to the security of the state, an increasingly
reactionary tendency was apparent. This was true, for example, in the field of education
where, under the inspiration of Count Dmitri Tolstoy,• minister of education from 1866
until 1880, academic freedom in the universities was virtually extinguished, the faculties
being commanded to make reports to the police about student opinion and all student
activities being prohibited. Simultaneously, Tolstoy declared war on natural science,
reducing the time allotted to it in secondary school curricula and enforcing a much greater
emphasis upon classical and modern languages, literature, history, geography, religion, and
other subjects that he appeared to regard as politically and morally innocuous.
“These measures were considered an attempt to shelter Russian youth from modern
knowledge and were widely resented. From a practical point of view, they neither
protected students from subversive influences nor provided a very effective education,
since Russia did not have enough competent classicists to make the reforms work. At a
time when the country was producing scientists of world reputation—D. I. Mendeleev
(1843-1901) in chemistry,•… ”

66. “The military reforms, however, were an exception forced on the government by the
unmistakable superiority of Western armies in the wars in the Crimea and in central
Europe. In matters less obviously vital to the security of the state, an increasingly
reactionary tendency was apparent. This was true, for example, in the field of education
where, under the inspiration of Count Dmitri Tolstoy,• minister of education from 1866
until 1880, academic freedom in the universities was virtually extinguished, the faculties
being commanded to make reports to the police about student opinion and all student
activities being prohibited. Simultaneously, Tolstoy declared war on natural science,
reducing the time allotted to it in secondary school curricula and enforcing a much greater
emphasis upon classical and modern languages, literature, history, geography, religion, and
other subjects that he appeared to regard as politically and morally innocuous.
“These measures were considered an attempt to shelter Russian youth from modern
knowledge and were widely resented. From a practical point of view, they neither
protected students from subversive influences nor provided a very effective education,
since Russia did not have enough competent classicists to make the reforms work. At a
time when the country was producing scientists of world reputation—D. I. Mendeleev
(1843-1901) in chemistry,•

67. op. cit., p. 386.
“The military reforms, however, were an exception forced on the government by the
unmistakable superiority of Western armies in the wars in the Crimea and in central
Europe. In matters less obviously vital to the security of the state, an increasingly
reactionary tendency was apparent. This was true, for example, in the field of education
where, under the inspiration of Count Dmitri Tolstoy,• minister of education from 1866
until 1880, academic freedom in the universities was virtually extinguished, the faculties
being commanded to make reports to the police about student opinion and all student
activities being prohibited. Simultaneously, Tolstoy declared war on natural science,
reducing the time allotted to it in secondary school curricula and enforcing a much greater
emphasis upon classical and modern languages, literature, history, geography, religion, and
other subjects that he appeared to regard as politically and morally innocuous.
“These measures were considered an attempt to shelter Russian youth from modern
knowledge and were widely resented. From a practical point of view, they neither
protected students from subversive influences nor provided a very effective education,
since Russia did not have enough competent classicists to make the reforms work. At a
time when the country was producing scientists of world reputation—D. I. Mendeleev
(1843-1901) in chemistry,• I. I. Mechnikov (1845-1916) in biology,• I. P. Pavlov
(1849-1936) in physiology •—they made it difficult for those great scholars to find and
train students…. ”

68. op. cit., pp. 386-87.
“…In a curious way, this probably aided rather than hurt the future of Russian science,
although not without doing a disservice to other disciplines. Hugh Seton-Watson has
written that Tolstoy’s policy confirmed Russian intellectuals in their ingenuous belief that
only scientific education is progressive and in their naive contempt for the humanities and
for all disinterested learning. This had far reaching repercussions, not least of all in the
intellectual life of the Soviet Union.
“Tolstoy’s measures were strongly supported by the tsar,…”

69. op. cit., pp. 386-87.
“…In a curious way, this probably aided rather than hurt the future of Russian science,
although not without doing a disservice to other disciplines. Hugh Seton-Watson has
written that Tolstoy’s policy confirmed Russian intellectuals in their ingenuous belief that
only scientific education is progressive and in their naive contempt for the humanities and
for all disinterested learning. This had far reaching repercussions, not least of all in the
intellectual life of the Soviet Union.
“Tolstoy’s measures were strongly supported by the tsar,• who in his later years fell
more and more under the influence of the ultra conservatives. Prominent among those was
the Moscow journalist, M. N. Katkov (1818-1887),• who had the distinction of having first
published Leo N. Tolstoy’s great novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877),
but probably considered his work in behalf of a conservative domestic policy and a
nationalistic foreign policy as infinitely more important. There is no doubt that Katkov
helped convince Alexander II that ‘destructive notions’ were rife among the youth of the
land and that a revolutionary movement of real importance threatened the regime.”

70. op. cit., pp. 386-87.
“…In a curious way, this probably aided rather than hurt the future of Russian science,
although not without doing a disservice to other disciplines. Hugh Seton-Watson has
written that Tolstoy’s policy confirmed Russian intellectuals in their ingenuous belief that
only scientific education is progressive and in their naive contempt for the humanities and
for all disinterested learning. This had far reaching repercussions, not least of all in the
intellectual life of the Soviet Union.
“Tolstoy’s measures were strongly supported by the tsar,• who in his later years fell
more and more under the influence of the ultra conservatives. Prominent among those was
the Moscow journalist, M. N. Katkov (1818-1887),..”

71. op. cit., pp. 386-87.
“…In a curious way, this probably aided rather than hurt the future of Russian science,
although not without doing a disservice to other disciplines. Hugh Seton-Watson has
written that Tolstoy’s policy confirmed Russian intellectuals in their ingenuous belief that
only scientific education is progressive and in their naive contempt for the humanities and
for all disinterested learning. This had far reaching repercussions, not least of all in the
intellectual life of the Soviet Union.
“Tolstoy’s measures were strongly supported by the tsar,• who in his later years fell
more and more under the influence of the ultra conservatives. Prominent among those was
the Moscow journalist, M. N. Katkov (1818-1887),• who had the distinction of having first
published Leo N. Tolstoy’s great novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877),
but probably considered his work in behalf of a conservative domestic policy and a
nationalistic foreign policy as infinitely more important.…”

72. op. cit., pp. 386-87.
“…In a curious way, this probably aided rather than hurt the future of Russian science,
although not without doing a disservice to other disciplines. Hugh Seton-Watson has
written that Tolstoy’s policy confirmed Russian intellectuals in their ingenuous belief that
only scientific education is progressive and in their naive contempt for the humanities and
for all disinterested learning. This had far reaching repercussions, not least of all in the
intellectual life of the Soviet Union.
“Tolstoy’s measures were strongly supported by the tsar,• who in his later years fell
more and more under the influence of the ultra conservatives. Prominent among those was
the Moscow journalist, M. N. Katkov (1818-1887),• who had the distinction of having first
published Leo N. Tolstoy’s great novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877),
but probably considered his work in behalf of a conservative domestic policy and a
nationalistic foreign policy as infinitely more important. There is no doubt that Katkov
helped convince Alexander II that ‘destructive notions’ were rife among the youth of the
land and that a revolutionary movement of real importance threatened the regime.”

73. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.•…”

74. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.•…”

75. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us)…”

76. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us)…”

77. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us) ‘a certain external roughness as a protest against
the smooth amiability of their fathers.’
op. cit., pp. 387-88.

78. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us) ‘a certain external roughness as a protest against
the smooth amiability of their fathers.’

79. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us) ‘a certain external roughness as a protest against
the smooth amiability of their fathers.’ That the progressive intelligentsia did talk a lot
about root and branch reform is doubtless true; but nihilism could hardly be considered a
force capable of jeopardizing political stability.•…”

80. op. cit., pp. 387-88.
“When one considers the disharmony of opinion and the lack of organization that
prevailed among critics of the regime in the 1860s and 1870s, this can be seen to have
been an exaggeration. Katkov himself was shocked and revolted by the rise of the attitude
that Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1861), called nihilism.• This was an
exaggerated realism that rejected all traditional values, turned its back on the past, and
insisted on the rights of individuality and the human reason; and its advocates, like the
German and French students of the period from 1815 to 1830 and other student rebels
since then, assumed (Kropotkin • tells us) ‘a certain external roughness as a protest against
the smooth amiability of their fathers.’ That the progressive intelligentsia did talk a lot
about root and branch reform is doubtless true; but nihilism could hardly be considered a
force capable of jeopardizing political stability.
“More important was the doctrine of populism, which in general held that social
revolution was necessary, that it need not wait upon the achievement of a capitalism as
mature as that of Western Europe but could be achieved on the basis of Russia’s system of
communal land tenure [the mir], and that the peasantry would be the driving force behind
the revolutionary upheaval….”

81. op. cit., p. 388.
“…Yet there was little agreement among the populists about tactics and program, and in
the 1860s and early 1870s, populism tended to be a formless, idealistic, and highly
unrealistic force. In the year 1873, when the remarkable movement ‘to the
people’ ["хождение в народ" (khozhdeniye v narod)] inspired thousands of young men and
women [народники, (narodniki)] of the educated class to go as missionaries to the
peasants to preach the cause of revolution, they found little response, having much the
same experience as Bazarov in Fathers and Sons, who, as Turgenev tells us, prided himself
on being able to talk to the peasants, but never suspected ‘that in their eyes he was all the
while he was something of the nature of a buffooning-clown.’ The populist movement of
this period made the mistake of idealizing the peasant and expecting wonders of him,
ignoring the fact that he was too illiterate and brutalized to comprehend its message”

82. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.…”

83. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.…”

84. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.…”

85. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.• Nechaev, a former follower of Bakunin and the leader
of a short-lived secret society in the 1860s, had emphasized the uses of terror as a means of
promoting revolutionary objectives and had finally given a dramatic demonstration of the
meaning of revolutionary discipline by cold-bloodedly murdering an associate suspected
of what has come in our own time to be called deviationism (This murder supplied the
theme of Dostoevsky’s novel The Demons).…”

86. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.• Nechaev, a former follower of Bakunin and the leader
of a short-lived secret society in the 1860s, had emphasized the uses of terror as a means of
promoting revolutionary objectives and had finally given a dramatic demonstration of the
meaning of revolutionary discipline by cold-bloodedly murdering an associate suspected
of what has come in our own time to be called deviationism (This murder supplied the
theme of Dostoevsky’s novel The Demons).• Tkachëv, who has been considered a
forerunner of Lenin, taught that successful revolutions depended less upon the action of
the masses than upon the vision and determination of a revolutionary elite. In the late
1870s, the populists accepted secrecy and terrorism as their methods, and, in particular,
advocated the use of political assassination as the effective method of advertising the need
for revolution and attracting mass support to the cause. While almost any high-ranking
official was considered worth killing, the tsar himself became the most desirable target;…”

87. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.• Nechaev, a former follower of Bakunin and the leader
of a short-lived secret society in the 1860s, had emphasized the uses of terror as a means of
promoting revolutionary objectives and had finally given a dramatic demonstration of the
meaning of revolutionary discipline by cold-bloodedly murdering an associate suspected
of what has come in our own time to be called deviationism (This murder supplied the
theme of Dostoevsky’s novel The Demons).• Tkachëv, who has been considered a
forerunner of Lenin, taught that successful revolutions depended less upon the action of
the masses than upon the vision and determination of a revolutionary elite. In the late
1870s, the populists accepted secrecy and terrorism as their methods, and, in particular,
advocated the use of political assassination as the effective method of advertising the need
for revolution and attracting mass support to the cause. While almost any high-ranking
official was considered worth killing, the tsar himself became the most desirable target;…”

88. Ibid.
“If the government had let matters take their course, this movement might have died a-
borning. But police persecution and mass trials of agitators not only kept it alive but
improved its efficiency. After the failure of the ’movement to the people’ and the arrests
and trials that followed it, populist leaders began to use methods advocated earlier by
Serge Nechaev and Peter Tkachëv.• Nechaev, a former follower of Bakunin and the leader
of a short-lived secret society in the 1860s, had emphasized the uses of terror as a means of
promoting revolutionary objectives and had finally given a dramatic demonstration of the
meaning of revolutionary discipline by cold-bloodedly murdering an associate suspected
of what has come in our own time to be called deviationism (This murder supplied the
theme of Dostoevsky’s novel The Demons).• Tkachëv, who has been considered a
forerunner of Lenin, taught that successful revolutions depended less upon the action of
the masses than upon the vision and determination of a revolutionary elite. In the late
1870s, the populists accepted secrecy and terrorism as their methods, and, in particular,
advocated the use of political assassination as the effective method of advertising the need
for revolution and attracting mass support to the cause. While almost any high-ranking
official was considered worth killing, the tsar himself became the most desirable target;…”

90. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,…”

91. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,…”

92. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,• led by Andrew Zheliabov •…”

93. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,• led by Andrew Zheliabov • and Sophie Perovsky,•
…”

94. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,• led by Andrew Zheliabov • and Sophie Perovsky,•
seems to have made Alexander’s death their raison d’ être and to have organized at least
seven attempts on his life.…”

95. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,• led by Andrew Zheliabov • and Sophie Perovsky,•
seems to have made Alexander’s death their raison d’ être and to have organized at least
seven attempts on his life.• In March 1881, they finally succeeded. As Alexander was
returning from a military review in St. Petersburg, a bomb was thrown at his carriage,
wrecking it without harming him. A few moments later, as he stood beside it, a second
bomb exploded at his feet, and he died within hours.”

96. op. cit., pp. 388-89.
“…and the society The People’s Will,• led by Andrew Zheliabov • and Sophie Perovsky,•
seems to have made Alexander’s death their raison d’ être and to have organized at least
seven attempts on his life.• In March 1881, they finally succeeded. As Alexander was
returning from a military review in St. Petersburg, a bomb was thrown at his carriage,
wrecking it without harming him. A few moments later, as he stood beside it, a second
bomb exploded at his feet, and he died within hours.”

100. Political Developments
FULL REACTION, 1881-1905

101. Political Developments
FULL REACTION, 1881-1905

102. Remember this figure from the cabinet of Nicholas I?

103. Remember this figure from the cabinet of Nicholas I?
Sergei Sergeivich
Uvarov
(1765-1855)
Education Minister
(1833-1849)

104. Remember this figure from the cabinet of Nicholas I?
Sergei Sergeivich
Uvarov
(1765-1855)
Education Minister
(1833-1849)
ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ (pra•vuh•slav•ie•ye)
ORTHODOXY

105. Remember this figure from the cabinet of Nicholas I?
Sergei Sergeivich
Uvarov
(1765-1855)
Education Minister
(1833-1849)
ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ (pra•vuh•slav•ie•ye)
ORTHODOXY
САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ (sam•uh•der•zhav•ie•ye)
AUTOCRACY

106. Remember this figure from the cabinet of Nicholas I?
Sergei Sergeivich
Uvarov
(1765-1855)
Education Minister
(1833-1849)
ПРАВОСЛАВИЕ (pra•vuh•slav•ie•ye)
ORTHODOXY
САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ (sam•uh•der•zhav•ie•ye)
AUTOCRACY
НАРОДНОСТЬ (na•road•nost)
NATIONALITY

113. Craig, op. cit., p. 389
“The perpetrators of this deed were hunted down and hanged; their organizations were
smashed; and the revolutionary movement was made ineffective for a generation. The
years that followed the death of the tsar-liberator were years of full reaction, in which
progressive views of any kind rendered their possessor suspect. In Dostoevsky’s • The
Demons, Captain Lebiatkin says:.…”

114. Craig, op. cit., p. 389
“The perpetrators of this deed were hunted down and hanged; their organizations were
smashed; and the revolutionary movement was made ineffective for a generation. The
years that followed the death of the tsar-liberator were years of full reaction, in which
progressive views of any kind rendered their possessor suspect. In Dostoevsky’s • The
Demons, Captain Lebiatkin says:.…”

115. “The perpetrators of this deed were hunted down and hanged; their organizations were
smashed; and the revolutionary movement was made ineffective for a generation. The
years that followed the death of the tsar-liberator were years of full reaction, in which
progressive views of any kind rendered their possessor suspect. In Dostoevsky’s • The
Demons, Captain Lebiatkin says:
If I were to try to bequeath my skin for a drum to, let us say, the Akmolinsky infantry regiment,
in which I had the honor of starting my service, with the proviso that the Russian national
anthem might be beaten on it every day in front of the drawn-up regiment, they would consider
it a liberal idea and forbid my skin to be used for that purpose.•

116. Craig, op. cit., p. 389
“The perpetrators of this deed were hunted down and hanged; their organizations were
smashed; and the revolutionary movement was made ineffective for a generation. The
years that followed the death of the tsar-liberator were years of full reaction, in which
progressive views of any kind rendered their possessor suspect. In Dostoevsky’s • The
Demons, Captain Lebiatkin says:
This, as well as anything, describes the atmosphere that prevailed under Alexander III
(1881-1894).…”
If I were to try to bequeath my skin for a drum to, let us say, the Akmolinsky infantry regiment,
in which I had the honor of starting my service, with the proviso that the Russian national
anthem might be beaten on it every day in front of the drawn-up regiment, they would consider
it a liberal idea and forbid my skin to be used for that purpose.•

126. Craig, op. cit., p. 390.
“When Alexander III died of nephritis in October 1894, his passing brought no alleviation
of this atmosphere of persecution and thought control. The new sovereign, Nicholas II
(1894-1917) possessed a political philosophy that was not markedly different from that of
his father, although it was not accompanied by the steadfastness and resolution of that
ruler….”

132. Craig, op. cit., p. 390.
“When Alexander III died of nephritis in October 1894, his passing brought no alleviation
of this atmosphere of persecution and thought control. The new sovereign, Nicholas II
(1894-1917) possessed a political philosophy that was not markedly different from that of
his father, although it was not accompanied by the steadfastness and resolution of that
ruler….
“…One thing in common all those who exerted influence on Nicholas possessed: the
desire that he should do nothing to relax the prevailing absolutism;• and the tsar was led by
them to try to outdo his father in autocratic inflexibility. Since Nicholas had no
conspicuous talents of his own, it is perhaps nt surprising that his reign, which had a tragic
beginning, when 1300 people were trampled to death because of police inefficiency during
the accession celebration, should have been marked by progressively greater tragedies
until its denouement in war, revolution, and the end of the Romanov dynasty.”
САМОДЕРЖАВИЕ (sam•uh•der•zhav•ie•ye)
AUTOCRACY

133. Political Developments
REFORMERS AND REVOLUTIONARIES
Arrest of a propagandist, by
Ilya Repin—
Wikipedia

152. Political Developments
THE REVOLUTION OF 1905
Bloody Sunday
by IvanVladimirov—
Wikipedia

153. Op. cit., p. 393.
“As we have noted, Russian industry experienced a protracted slump in the years
1899-1903, in which factory shutdowns…”

154. Op. cit., p. 393.
“As we have noted, Russian industry experienced a protracted slump in the years
1899-1903, in which factory shutdowns caused great suffering among the working classes.
Before the country had fully recovered from the effects of the depression, the reckless
policy of the government in the Far East had led to war with Japan; this necessitated a
calling up of reserves from the rural districts, which disrupted agricultural production and
distribution sufficiently to cause serious shortages and new curtailment of industrial
employment.…

155. Op. cit., p. 393.
“As we have noted, Russian industry experienced a protracted slump in the years
1899-1903, in which factory shutdowns • caused great suffering among the working
classes. Before the country had fully recovered from the effects of the depression, the
reckless policy of the government in the Far East had led to war with Japan; this
necessitated a calling up of reserves from the rural districts, which disrupted agricultural
production and distribution sufficiently to cause serious shortages and new curtailment of
industrial employment.…

171. Police mugshots of Trotsky in 1905 after Soviet members were arrested during a meeting in Free Economic Society building

172. Op. cit., p. 395.
“With this decree, which apparently marked the transformation of autocratic Russia into
a constitutional monarchy, the unity of the revolutionary movement dissolved and its fire
subsided. There were some attempts by radical elements in the zemstvo organization and
the organized workers’ groups to push for greater demands, but the moderates professed to
be satisfied, and public opinion was beginning to swing against the radicals. This was
shown by the support given by the lower middle class and unskilled workers to the чёрное
соты (chornoye soti, black hundreds), gangs of hooligans organized by the reactionary
agrarian elements and the church and used to attack opponents of the government.…”

173. Op. cit., p. 395.
“With this decree, which apparently marked the transformation of autocratic Russia into
a constitutional monarchy, the unity of the revolutionary movement dissolved and its fire
subsided. There were some attempts by radical elements in the zemstvo organization and
the organized workers’ groups to push for greater demands, but the moderates professed to
be satisfied, and public opinion was beginning to swing against the radicals. This was
shown by the support given by the lower middle class and unskilled workers to the чёрное
соты (chornoye soti, black hundreds), gangs of hooligans organized by the reactionary
agrarian elements and the church and used to attack opponents of the government.…”

174. Op. cit., p. 395.
“With this decree, which apparently marked the transformation of autocratic Russia into
a constitutional monarchy, the unity of the revolutionary movement dissolved and its fire
subsided. There were some attempts by radical elements in the zemstvo organization and
the organized workers’ groups to push for greater demands, but the moderates professed to
be satisfied, and public opinion was beginning to swing against the radicals. This was
shown by the support given by the lower middle class and unskilled workers to the чёрное
соты (chornoye soti, black hundreds), gangs of hooligans organized by the reactionary
agrarian elements and the church and used to attack opponents of the government.• When
the police dared break up the St. Petersburg Soviet in December, it was a sign that the
regime was recovering its confidence. The police action touched off sympathy strikes and
large-scale fighting in Rostov and Moscow, but this was the last gasp of the revolution of
1905.”

175. Political Developments
THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIMENT
The Manifesto of 17 October
1905
by Ilya Repin—
Wikipedia

177. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok…”

178. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok…”

179. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe….”

180. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the politically active
elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie on the side of
reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The liberal forces
were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,…”

181. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much
had been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at
least, to do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the
Russian people seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique
in Switzerland], while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in
1908, were conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the
politically active elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie
on the side of reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The
liberal forces were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a
greater degree of parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,• who were content with the
tsar’s manifesto. The Social Democrats • were embroiled in intestine feuds, and the
Socialist Revolutionaries • were entirely absorbed in new plots against individuals. On
the other side, the nobility, the landlords, the church, the bureaucrats, the soldiers, and
the Pan-Slav patriots organized a ‘Union of the Russian People’ • to encourage the tsar
to resist further concessions and to regain the ground he had conceded in October.”

182. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much
had been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at
least, to do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the
Russian people seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique
in Switzerland], while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in
1908, were conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the
politically active elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie
on the side of reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The
liberal forces were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a
greater degree of parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,…”

183. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the politically active
elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie on the side of
reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The liberal forces
were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a greater degree of
parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,• who were content with the tsar’s manifesto. The
Social Democrats • …”

184. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the politically active
elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie on the side of
reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The liberal forces
were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a greater degree of
parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,• who were content with the tsar’s manifesto. The
Social Democrats • were embroiled in intestine feuds, and the Socialist Revolutionaries
…”

185. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the politically active
elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie on the side of
reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The liberal forces
were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a greater degree of
parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,• who were content with the tsar’s manifesto. The
Social Democrats • were embroiled in intestine feuds, and the Socialist Revolutionaries •
were entirely absorbed in new plots against individuals. On the other side, the nobility, the
landlords, the church, the bureaucrats, the soldiers, and the Pan-Slav patriots organized a
‘Union of the Russian People’ • to encourage the tsar to resist further concessions and to
regain the ground he had conceded in October.”

186. Ibid.
“Once relative order had been restored, it soon became clear that nothing very much had
been won by the revolution after all, and that it was impossible, for the moment at least, to
do anything about it. In the years from 1906 to 1914, the great mass of the Russian people
seemed to sink back into apathy [certainly true of Lenin and his clique in Switzerland],
while the most sensitive minds, as the poet Alexander Blok • wrote in 1908, were
conscious of ‘a constant and wanton feeling of catastrophe.•’ Among the politically active
elements in the nation all the strength and unity of will seemed to lie on the side of
reaction rather than on that of progress. The left was hopelessly split. The liberal forces
were split among the Constitutional Democrats or Cadets,• who wanted a greater degree of
parliamentary power, and the Octobrists,• who were content with the tsar’s manifesto. The
Social Democrats • were embroiled in intestine feuds, and the Socialist Revolutionaries •
were entirely absorbed in new plots against individuals. On the other side, the nobility, the
landlords, the church, the bureaucrats, the soldiers, and the Pan-Slav patriots organized a
‘Union of the Russian People’…”

198. “It was characteristic of the regime that Stolypin suffered the same treatment meted out to
Witte earlier, being attacked by reactionaries as a liberal and progressively losing the favor of
the tsar as his personal stature grew. It was widely rumored in 1911 that he would soon be
dismissed. Instead, while attending a theater performance in Kiev in September of that year,•
Op. cit., p. 395.

200. On 14 September [O.S. 1 September] 1911, there was a performance of Rimsky-Korsakov's TheTale
ofTsar Saltan at the Kiev Opera House in the presence of the Tsar and his two oldest daughters, the
Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana.The theater was occupied by 90 men posted as interior guards.[2]
During the intermission of a performance Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin was killed. According to
Alexander Spiridovich, after the second act "Stolypin was standing in front of the ramp separating
the parterre from the orchestra, his back to the stage. On his right were Baron Freedericks and
Gen. Suhkomlinov." His personal body guard had gone to smoke. Stolypin was shot twice, once in
the arm and once in the chest by Dmitry Bogrov, a leftist revolutionary, trying to rehabilitate
himself. Bogrov ran to one of the entries and was subsequently caught. "He [Stolypin] turned
toward the Imperial Box, then seeing the Tsar who had entered the box, he made a gesture with
both hands to tell the Tsar to go back." The orchestra began to play "God Save the Tsar." The
doctors hoped Stolypin would recover, but, despite never losing consciousness, his condition
deteriorated. The next day, the distressed Tsar knelt at Stolypin's hospital bedside and kept
repeating the words "Forgive me". Stolypin died three days later.—Wikipedia

201. Born Mordecai Gershkovich Bogrov into a family of Jewish merchants in Kiev, Bogrov, while
simultaneously acting as an anarchist revolutionary, had been an agent of the Okhrana secret police
since 1906, informing on the activities of Socialist Revolutionaries, Social Democrats and anarchists.
On 14 September 1911, Dmitry Bogrov shot the Russian prime minister Pyotr Stolypin, in the Kiev
Opera House, in front of Tsar Nicholas II and two of the imperial princesses. Stolypin died four days
later. This act was committed ostensibly in order to decapitate a successful and popular
conservative reform movement and thus hasten violent revolution. However, it has been alleged that
Bogrov was permitted to act at the behest of extreme right-wing elements in the Tsarist secret
police who detested Stolypin because of his agrarian reforms and his flair for parliamentary
government. (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn extensively investigates and gives full credit to this conjecture
in his historical novel August 1914).
Bogrov was tried by the district military court. Despite the plea of Stolypin's widow to the court to
save Bogrov's life (she said that taking the young man's life would not bring her husband back),
Bogrov was sentenced to death and executed by hanging on September 24 [O.S. September
11] 1911 in the Kiev fortress of Lysa Hora.—Wikipedia

202. Ibid.
“It was characteristic of the regime that Stolypin suffered the same treatment meted out to
Witte earlier, being attacked by reactionaries as a liberal and progressively losing the favor of
the tsar as his personal stature grew. It was widely rumored in 1911 that he would soon be
dismissed. Instead, while attending a theater performance in Kiev in September of that year….
…shot and killed by Dimitry Bogrov,• a man who had been both a Socialist Revolutionary and
a police spy, and who possessed a police pass at the time of his attack on the minister.
“After this the government made few attempts to alleviate existing abuses. In an atmosphere
of unrelieved reaction, Russia once more began to indulge in foreign adventures of the kind that
had nearly proved disastrous in 1905 and were to prove so in 1917, when military defeat led to
a greater revolution than that of 1905.

213. The Subject Nationalities
RUSSIFICATION
Tsarist Russia—Prison House of Nations—
Lenin, 1920

214. The Subject Nationalities
RUSSIFICATION
Tsarist Russia—Prison House of Nations—
Lenin, 1920

215. Ibid.
“Russia had as many subject nationalities as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and treated them
no better. Besides those who could call themselves Russians, there were Ukrainians and White
Russians, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, Letts and Estonians, Rumanians, Armenians, various
Turkish and Mongol peoples, some five million Jews, who were set apart and treated as an alien
people, and Finns, who occupied a somewhat different position than the others.
“The prevailing policy with respect to the nationalities, especially after the death of
Alexander II, who had shown some respect for their separate cultures and customs, was
designed to stamp out differences and impose Russian modes of thought and speech upon them.
Under Alexander III, for instance, a deliberate policy of Russification was directed against the
Germans in the Baltic provinces, which included the introduction of Russian municipal
institutions, the use of Russian as the language of instruction in the schools, the suppression of
the German University of Dorpat by a Russian institution, and an attempt to weaken and even
destroy the Lutheran religion…. Similar policies were followed in this and the following reign
in the case of the Armenians, the Tartars of the Volga, the Georgians, and other nationalities,
and, as a general rule—Russification was always intensified in those areas where nationalist or
revolutionary parties appeared.”

216. The Subject Nationalities
POLAND

217. The Subject Nationalities
POLAND

220. Ibid.
“After the suppression of the revolt of 1863, Russian policy in Poland was designed to break
up centers of revolution and to weaken potentially dissident groups. Alexander II’s government
sought to promote these ends by suppressing the University of Warsaw and Russifying the
schools, the courts, the railways, and the banks and also by giving a more liberal interpretation
of the emancipation edict than was employed in Russia proper in the hope of weakening the
nationalist Polish landlord class. The nobility did tend to play a reduced role in Polish affairs in
the subsequent period, but the nationalism they had represented was now preached by middle
class groups which grew up with the rapid development of Polish industry in this period. The
National Democratic party… ”

221. Ibid.
“After the suppression of the revolt of 1863, Russian policy in Poland was designed to break
up centers of revolution and to weaken potentially dissident groups. Alexander II’s government
sought to promote these ends by suppressing the University of Warsaw and Russifying the
schools, the courts, the railways, and the banks and also by giving a more liberal interpretation
of the emancipation edict than was employed in Russia proper in the hope of weakening the
nationalist Polish landlord class. The nobility did tend to play a reduced role in Polish affairs in
the subsequent period, but the nationalism they had represented was now preached by middle
class groups which grew up with the rapid development of Polish industry in this period. The
National Democratic party became the most important of these, and in Roman Dmowski… ”

222. Ibid.
“After the suppression of the revolt of 1863, Russian policy in
Poland was designed to break up centers of revolution and to
weaken potentially dissident groups. Alexander II’s government
sought to promote these ends by suppressing the University of
Warsaw and Russifying the schools, the courts, the railways, and
the banks and also by giving a more liberal interpretation of the
emancipation edict than was employed in Russia proper in the
hope of weakening the nationalist Polish landlord class. The
nobility did tend to play a reduced role in Polish affairs in the
subsequent period, but the nationalism they had represented was
now preached by middle class groups which grew up with the
rapid development of Polish industry in this period. The National
Democratic party • became the most important of these, and in
Roman Dmowski it had a leader whose teaching profoundly
influenced those who forged Polish liberty in the war years. Nor
was nationalism confined to this group. The Polish Socialist
Party,… ”

223. Ibid.
and the banks and also by giving a more liberal
interpretation of the emancipation edict than
was employed in Russia proper in the hope of
weakening the nationalist Polish landlord class.
The nobility did tend to play a reduced role in
Polish affairs in the subsequent period, but the
nationalism they had represented was now
preached by middle class groups which grew up
with the rapid development of Polish industry
in this period. The National Democratic party •
became the most important of these, and in
Roman Dmowski it had a leader whose
teaching profoundly influenced those who
forged Polish liberty in the war years. Nor was
nationalism confined to this group. The Polish
Socialist Party,• founded in Paris in 1892, had a
strong internationalist wing, headed by Rosa
Luxemburg,• … ”

224. Ibid.
“After the suppression of the revolt of 1863, Russian policy in
Poland was designed to break up centers of revolution and to weaken
potentially dissident groups. Alexander II’s government sought to
promote these ends by suppressing the University of Warsaw and
Russifying the schools, the courts, the railways, and the banks and also
by giving a more liberal interpretation of the emancipation edict than
was employed in Russia proper in the hope of weakening the
nationalist Polish landlord class. The nobility did tend to play a
reduced role in Polish affairs in the subsequent period, but the
nationalism they had represented was now preached by middle class
groups which grew up with the rapid development of Polish industry
in this period. The National Democratic party • became the most
important of these, and in Roman Dmowski it had a leader whose
teaching profoundly influenced those who forged Polish liberty in the
war years. Nor was nationalism confined to this group. The Polish
Socialist Party,• founded in Paris in 1892, had a strong internationalist
wing, headed by Rosa Luxemburg, who considered Polish
independence as chimerical; but just as strong were those socialists
who took their lead from Joseph Pilsudski (1867-1935),• whose
socialism was a thin veneer over a burning desire for freedom and
who, one day, was to be dictator of a free Polish state. ”

225. Ibid.
“During the revolution of 1905, there were serious disorders in Poland, and, in the first
Russian Duma, Dmowski,• who led the Polish delegation, tried to win support for Polish
autonomy within the empire. This did not succeed, although the Duma approved some
temporary relaxation of the Russification policy in Polish schools. These gains were wiped out
in the Stolypin period, for that statesman was an ardent nationalist whose first action with
respect to Poland was to withdraw the permission, granted in 1906, to establish private schools
in which instruction in Polish would be allowed. Simultaneously, the electoral reform of 1907
greatly reduced Polish representation in the Duma, an action that increased resentment in
Poland and encouraged the growth of a desire for a break with Russia. ”

226. The Subject Nationalities
FINLAND
Edvard Isto's painting Attack (1899) symbolizes
the beginning Finland's Russification.The two-
headed eagle • of Russia is tearing away the law
book from the Finnish Maiden's arms.—
Wikipedia

228. Op. cit., pp. 398-99.
“Finland had been acquired by Russia in 1809; but until the end of the reign of Alexander II,
the connection had been a tenuous one, the state being constituted as a grand duchy with the
emperor as grand duke, but having its own constitution and parliament and its own army,
currency, and postal service. With the coming of reaction to Russia in 1883 and the growth of
specific Russian nationalism, these rights were placed in jeopardy; and Alexander III took the
first steps toward the Russification of Finnish institutions. The real turning point in Russo-
Finnish relations, however, came in 1899 when an imperial decree stipulated that henceforth
laws affecting both Finland and the rest of the empire would be within the jurisdiction of the
Russian State Council, and the Finnish Diet would have only advisory powers with respect to
them. This was followed by the absorption of the Finnish postal system by the Russian, the
disbanding of the Finnish army, and a decree making Finns liable for service in the Russian
armed services. ”

229. Op. cit., p. 399.
“The Finnish people resisted these blows at their autonomy by a highly effective policy of
passive resistance; and this, and the troubles attendant on the revolution of 1905, forced the
revocation of the offensive decrees. This was only a temporary respite, however. As in the case
of Poland, the policy of Russification was resumed under Stolypin, and there was a series of
clashes between the Finnish Diet and the tsar’s governor-general. By 1914, it was clear that the
Russian government intended to wipe out Finnish autonomy, and recognition of this determined
Finland’s conduct in the last stages of the world war.
“The national pride and sturdy independence of the Finns was reflected in the music of
Scandinavia’s greatest symphonic composer, Jean Sibelius (1865-1957). His work, much of it
based on themes from the Finnish epic the Kalevala, appealed so directly to the national mood
that, in1897, the Finnish Senate voted him a life pension. His well-known tone poem Finlandia.
was published two years later.”

230. It was Russia’s fate to enter European Great Power rivalry “behind” her competitors in so
many ways
Her size might seem an advantage, and post-1945 it clearly has become such
But in 1914, with her slow start in the Industrial Revolution, this was not the case
As one of my professors remarked about Catherine the Great: “The fatal flaw of enlightened
despotism is that everything depends upon the despot.”
And certainly we see that in the case of her successors, beginning with her son Paul
The Romanov shortcomings produced horrific consequences for the Russian people and so
many other victims of Marxist Communism
And that is clearly another story
jbp